"I want free/subsidised healthcare" and "I want to gradually erode my health without realising it OR incredibly cheaply OR because in helpless to not do so" are normally incompatible.
* People having children (more health visits and possible complications)
* Those who drive (more accidents versus public transport)
* Those living further south (more sunshine -> more skin cancer)
* People with hobbies like rock climbing (more likely to get injured)
* People who consume alcohol (more likely to get health issues)
* People with pre-existing conditions
I'm sure there are many many more examples where individuals do things that put them at greater risk of some health concerns versus other groups.
If someone says that they would prefer it if the state lowered taxes rather than subsidizing healthcare, then healthcare gets subsidized anyway, and then soda gets regulated and that same person objects, it seems a bit disingenuous for the government to then argue that it is entitled to regulate soda because it's paying for that person's healthcare.